MiWWWIMiWinMWIIMWWMWMWIWIfMWWWIIIMIIilW^ 


mmmmmmmmmmmmMmmmmmwmm^. 


mmmmmm^ 


wnmrnmimmmmm 


PBESENTED  TO  THE  LIBRARY 


PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


Professor  fienry  van  Dyke,  D.D.,  IxIi.D. 

BX  5949  .CT  M35  1887 
Mallory,  George  Scovill, 
1838-1897. 
^i  Lord's  Supper:  the  continue 
•^   feast  on  the  one  completed 


?> 


f«V«"i     , 


-.:^\    -vA 


>  .* . 


-yt^.pfu^''  'W 


A^n^JL^. 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER: 

THE 

CONTINUED  FEAST 

ON 

THE   ONE 

COMPLETED  SACRIFICE, 


BY  GEORGE  S.  MALLORY,  D.D. 


NEW  YORK: 
E.  P.  DuTTON  &  Co.,  31  West  23D  Street. 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER: 

THE  CONTINUED  FEAST  ON  THE 

ONE  COMPLETED  SACRIFICE, 


An  examination  of  our  Lord's  Words  at  the 
institution  of  His  Supper,  in  the  hope  of  finding 
out  their  exact  meaning  and  the  true  nature  of 
that  greatest  act  of  Christian  worship,  led  grad- 
ually and  irresistibly  to  the  theory  which  the 
writer  confesses  not  to  have  held  before,  that  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  our  Lord  handed  down  as 
the  chief  worship  of  His  Church,  a  sacrificial 
feast — the  feast  on  His  own  sacrificed  Body.  It 
was  not  simply  a  feast,  it  was  the  feast,  the 
feast  which  pertained  to,  belonged  to,  was  the 
necessary  corollary  of,  our  Lord's  sacrifice  on 
the  cross.  Its  individuality,  its  definiteness  as 
the  particular  feast  which  necessarily  followed 


4 

the  sacrifice  of  our  Lord's  Body,  appears  in  St. 
Paul's  solicitation,  "  Christ  our  Passover  is  sac- 
rificed for  us,  therefore,  let  us  keep  the  feast." 
It  does  not  appear,  for  instance,  it  has  been  lost 
sight  of,  in  the  invitation  in  the  communion 
office  of  the  first  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI., 
"  Christe  our  Pascal  Lambe  is  offered  up  for  us 
once  for  all,  when  He  bare  our  sinnes  on  His 
Body  upon  the  crosse,  for  He  is  the  very  Lambe 
of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sinnes  of  the 
worlde;  wherefore  let  uskepe  a  joyfull  and  holy 
feast  with  the  Lorde." 

That  the  crucifying  of  our  Lord  was  a  sacri- 
fice all  men  must  admit.  It  was  not,  indeed, 
done  in  accordance  with  the  ritual  of  God's 
Church,  nor  was  it  the  official  act  of  the  priests, 
though  one  of  Christ's  own  disciples  conspired 
with  the  chief  priests  to  bring  it  to  accomplish- 
ment. It  was  not  a  sacrifice  that  could  be 
made  by  God's  priests,  for  the  victim  was  a  hu- 
man being — nay,  was  the  God-man.  The  death 
must  needs  be,  but  the  doing  it  was  an  offence, 
and  woe  to  those  by  whom  the  offence  should 


come.  The  trial,  the  judgment,  and  the  death, 
were  the  processes  of  a  mistaken  observance  of 
human  laws,  and  Roman  soldiers  compassed 
the  death  of  the  Victim.  Yet  all  Holy  Scrip- 
ture points  to  the  death  of  our  Lord  as  a  sacri- 
fice. Jesus  Christ  offered  Himself,  offered  His 
life  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  His  life 
was  taken.  As  often  occurs  in  the  world's  his- 
tory, the  wickedness  and  weakness  of  men  were 
made  to  be  the  instruments  for  carrying  out 
God's  plans.  "  Him,  being  delivered  by  the 
determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God, 
ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have  cru- 
cified and  slain  "  (Acts  ii.  23.).  The  sacrifice 
was  made.  The  making,  the  performing  of  the 
sacrifice,  so  far  as  the  crucifixion  is  concerned, 
was  the  work  of  the  Roman  soldiers — the  offer- 
ing of  Himself  for  the  sacrifice  was  Christ's  own 
propitiatory  offering. 

Our  Lord's  body,  then,  was  sacrificed,  was 
made  a  sacrifice,  and  the  feast  upon  that  sacri- 
fice, its  particular  sacrificial  feast,  was  enjoined, 
or,  rather,  provided  for  by  Him.     In  doing  this 


6 

He  introduced  no  new  idea  of  worship,  estab- 
lished no  new  principle.  Sacrificial  feasts  were, 
at  that  time,  practised  all  the  world  over,  and 
their  meaning  and  scope  were  perfectly  familiar 
to  all,  of  whatever  religion.  They  had  been 
established  by  God  in  His  earliest  commands 
regarding  the  worship  to  be  addressed  to  Him, 
and  heathen  nations  had  borrowed  them  from 
His  chosen  people.  Their  establishment  was 
the  embodiment  of  a  principle  divinely  or- 
dained. The  principles  of  God's  dealing  with 
men  never  change.  Therefore  Christ,  being 
God,  did  not,  and  we  may  say  could  not,  dis- 
honor, or  disregard  this  establishment  of  the 
sacrificial  feast.  We  may  rightly  reason  that 
such  a  disregarding  would  not  have  been  in  ac- 
cord with  that  attribute  of  God  which  we  dis- 
cover by  the  unchangeableness  of  His  work- 
ings. One  might  safely  have  argued  in  advance, 
from  the  nature  of  God,  that  the  principle  which 
He  laid  down  in  establishing  the  Passover,  long 
before  the  giving  of  the  Ten  Commandments, 
would  probably  be  observed  by  the  Son.     In- 


deed,  that  Christ  is  our  Passover  necessarily 
involves  the  duty  or  the  privilege  that  we  should 
keep  //^^  feast.  To  say  that  Christ  is  "our 
Passover"  is  to  say  that  He  is  "our  Paschal 
Lamb  of  which  we  are  to  partake." 

The  sacrificial  feast  was  the  means  by  which 
those  who  partook  of  it  were  joined  with  the 
offerer  in  making  his  offering,  and  so  became 
sharers  with  him  in  all  the  blessings  to  be 
gained  by  the  offering.  Therefore  in  command- 
ing to  eat  and  to  drink  the  broken  bread  and 
the  wine  poured  out  as  His  body  broken  and 
His  shed  blood,  our  Lord  made  it  possible  for 
His  disciples  always  and  everywhere  to  be 
joined  with  Him  in  offering  Himself  for  His  all- 
sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satisfaction, 
and  so  to  share  in  all  the  blessings  gained  by 
that  sacrifice.  In  other  words.  His  disciples 
are  to  partake  of  Christ  dead,  i.e.,  sacrificed,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  joined  with  the  living 
Christ  in  offering  Himself  for  that  sacrifice. 
Christ  is  the  true  Paschal  Lamb.  As  in  the 
Passover   the   head    of  the   family  offered  the 


paschal  lamb  for  sacrifice — provided  the  paschal 
lamb — and  called  upon  the  members  of  the 
family  to  eat  of  it  when  sacrificed,  so  Christ 
offering  Himself  for  sacrifice,  providing  the  true 
Paschal  Lamb,  calls  upon  the  whole  human 
family,  of  which  He  is  the  Head,  to  partake  of 
the  sacrifice.  By  this  partaking  His  great  act 
becomes  ours,  in  effect,  through  His  blessed  in- 
vitation, and  the  benefits  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
true  Paschal  Lamb  which  He  thus  provided  are 
made  ours.  The  contemplation  of  this  great 
privilege  of  such  a  unity  with  our  Elder  Brother, 
thus  calling  upon  all  the  household  to  partake 
of  the  slain  Lamb,  and  of  the  unity  of  all  His 
disciples  through  all  time  and  everywhere  join- 
ing in  this  same  one  continued  sacrificial  Feast, 
and  the  new  clearness  that  it  gives  to  many 
parts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  have 
been  so  great  a  source  of  satisfaction  to  the 
writer,  that  he  publishes  this  essay,  in  the  hope 
that  it  may  help  to  lift  others  above  the  clouds 
of  discordant  teaching  into  the  clear  light  of 
Christ's  own  words. 


9 

We  are  celebrating  the  Festival  of  the  Na- 
tivity. The  blessed  revelation  of  the  Incarna- 
tion is  before  us.  The  Son  of  God  is  become 
the  Son  of  Man.  He  has  taken  humanity  to 
Himself,  and  henceforth  Deity  and  humanity 
are  ever  joined  together.  The  atonement  is 
begun.  The  God-man  is  become  the  head  of 
the  human  race.  He  is  the  second  Adam.  As 
in  the  first  Adam  all  died,  even  so  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  made  alive.  As  in  Adam  all  sinned, 
even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  gain  redemption  from 
that  sin.  Humanity  shared  in  the  deed  of 
Adam;  so  also  it  is  to  have  part  in  Christ's 
work.  He  is  become  the  representative  of  hu- 
manity. He  has  gathered  humanity  into  Him- 
self. The  embodiment  of  humanity  is  now  the 
perfect  man — Christ  Jesus.  Not  that  we  loved 
God,  but  because  He  first  loved  us — of  God's 
own  will  and  favor  —  humanity  is  hereafter 
united  with  Deity  in  working  out  its  own  re- 
demption and  salvation.  Humanity,  not  of  its 
own  power,  but  by  the  Grace  of  God,  humanity 
in    the   person  of  the  man   Christ  Jesus,  is  to 


10 

overcome  the  evil  wrought  by  the  first  man. 
But  while  this  season  of  the  Christian  year 
brings  the  Incarnation  more  immediately  before 
our  minds,  we  cannot  but  remember  that  in  fact 
the  Saviour's  redemptive  work  on  earth  is  fin- 
ished. He  has  returned  into  the  heaven  to  pre- 
pare a  place  for  us.  He  has  resumed  the  glory  of 
which  He  emptied  Himself  that  He  might  take 
upon  Him  our  nature.  In  great  triumph  He 
has  entered  again  into  the  joy  of  His  Father's 
presence.  At  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  He 
now  sitteth,  and  ever  maketh  intercession  for 
us,  thus  continuing  there  the  work  begun  in  the 
redemption.  On  the  earth  His  Vicar,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  is  come  and  is  now  present  in  the  Church, 
sent  by  the  Son  to  bestow  upon  its  members 
the  inestimable  gifts  which  He  gained  for  them 
by  His  meritorious  Cross  and  Passion.  In  the 
immediate  contemplation  then  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, and  also  with  the  eyes  fixed  on  our  Lord 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  earth  striving  with  and  for  man, 
that  all  mankind  should  be  partakers  of  Christ's 
Resurrection,  this  essay  is  begun. 


11 

In  entering  upon  an  inquiry  into  the  nature 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  resort  must  be  had  at 
once  to  the  words  of  our  Lord  in  which  He  in- 
stituted and  by  which  He  explained  it.  For 
two  propositions  may  be  laid  down  axiomatically 
as  bases  of  our  belief: 

First,  we  must  accept,  and  we  do  accept, 
reverently  and  gladly,  whatever  statement  our 
Lord  thus  made  to  His  disciples,  and  we  assert 
the  same  to  be  true; 

Secondly,  we  must  not  assert,  and  we  cannot 
believe,  anything  whatever  regarding  the  nature 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  contrary  to  or  differing 
from  what  our  Lord  Himself  declared. 

Our  Lord  said,  "Take,  eat;  this  is  My  body, 
which  is  broken  for  you."  Therefore  we  accept 
this  statement.  He  did  not  say,  "  this  is  not  My 
body,"  nor  "in  this  is  My  body,"  nor  "under 
this  is  My  body,"  nor  "  this  bread  is  a  form  or 
veil  under  which  My  body  is  present,"  nor 
"with  this  is  My  body,"  nor  "I  am  in  this 
bread,"  nor  "  this  is  changed  into  My  body," 
nor  "  this  becomes  My  body,"  nor  "  under  each 


12 

atom  of  this  bread  is  whole  Christ,"  nor  "this 
bread  ceases  to  be."  Any  of  these  statements' 
could,  of  course,  have  been  made  by  our  Lord, 
if  they  had  been  true.  But  the  statement  which 
He  did  make  is  not  in  the  least  synonymous 
with  them,  is  entirely  different  from  them. 
Therefore  we  are  not  to  make  or  believe  those 
statements. 

Our  Saviour's  words  were  the  expression  of 
His  will.  If  man  reads  into  them  any  meaning 
of  His  own,  they  become  so  far  the  expression, 
not  of  Christ's  will,  but  of  man's.  They  were 
the  expression  of  the  Saviour's  will,  on  whose 
will  alone  their  value  or  efficacy  depends,  and 
by  whose  will  alone  they  became  true.  They 
express,  therefore,  Christ's  truth,  and  man 
must  neither  add  to  nor  subtract  from  that 
truth. 

As  they  are,  then,  such  a  complete  expression 
of  our  Lord's  will,  it  is  our  duty  as  loving  dis- 
ciples, to  seek  to  know  that  will  thus  expressed. 
They  are  a  gracious  declaration  of  our  Lord, 
and  therefore  of  inestimable  value.     With  lov- 


13 

ing  care  we  should  seek  diligently  to  find  their 
exact  meaning. 

That  we  can  thus  know  the  exact  and  full 
meaning  of  our  Lord's  zvords  there  is  no  doubt, 
for  they  are  words  of  human  language,  and 
their  meaning  is  determined  by  the  rules  of  hu- 
man language.  As  the  wine  into  which  the 
water  had  been  miraculously  changed,  would 
have  responded  perfectly  to  whatever  test  man 
could  have  applied  to  it,  whether  as  to  taste  or 
as  to  color,  or,  by  a  chemical  analysis,  as  to  its 
component  parts,  so  the  words  of  our  Lord, 
which  like  the  wine  are  the  outcome  and  expres- 
sion of  His  will,  may  be  tested  reverently,  per- 
fectly, by  the  rules  of  language. 

He  chose  to  express  His  will  in  words  and 
He  chose  these  words  in  which  to  express  His 
will,  and  therefore  they  are  the  perfect  expres- 
sion of  His  will.  They  are  words  standing  in 
certain  relation  to  each  other,  and  all,  together, 
containing  and  giving  a  meaning  which  is  per- 
fectly and  absolutely  determined  by  the  rules 
of  language   and   the  usage    of  man's  speech. 


14 

The  entire  sentence  conveys  its  meaning  as 
clearly  and  distinctly  as  any  single  word  con- 
veys its  own  meaning.  It  is  as  impious  to  sup- 
pose or  to  teach  that  Christ  meant  something 
which  He  did  not  say  as  that  He  said  something 
which  He  did  not  mean.  In  short,  the  divine 
thought  found  perfect  expression  in  man's 
language,  and  being  thus  expressed,  the  rules 
of  man's  language  determine  what  that  thought 
is. 

We  cannot  suppose  that  Chiist  did  not  ex- 
press Himself  perfectly,  for  that  would  be  to 
suppose  His  own  imperfection.  We  need  not 
assert  that  the  whole  of  the  divine  wisdom, 
which  is  infinite,  can  be  expressed  in  man's 
language  which  is  finite,  or  conveyed  to  man's 
mind  which  is  finite.  But  we  must  believe  that 
what  God  chooses  to  express  to  man.  He  can, 
and,  by  the  necessity  of  His  nature,  must  ex- 
press accurately  and  adequately.  Man  must 
not,  therefore,  presume  to  substitute  any  phrase 
of  his  own  for  that  chosen  by  Christ. 

"  The  Lord  Jesus,  the  night  in  which  He  was 


15 

betrayed,  took  bread,  and  when  He  had  given 
thanks,  He  brake,  and  said,  'Take,  eat;  this  is 
My  body,  which  is  broken*  for  you;  this  do  in 
remembrance  of  Me.'  After  the  same  manner 
also  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying, 
'This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  My  blood;t 
this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance 
of  Me.'  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and 
drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till 
He  come."     (I.  Cor.  xi.  23-26.) 

It  is  to  be  noted  here,  and  it  should  always 
be  kept  in  mind  that  drinking  the  cup  has 
equal  place  with  eating  the  bread,  in  this  in- 
junction of  our  Lord.  For  our  present  purpose, 
however,  it  is  sufficient  to  consider  now  only 
that  sentence  which  refers  to  the  bread. 

Having  in  mind  the  circumstances  narrated 
in   the   context   we  find  that  as  it  was  bread 


*  In  the  version  of  the  late  Revision  Committee,  and  by 
Westcott  &  Hort  this  word  "broken"  is  omitted,  but  on  the 
whole  there  seems  to  be  good  reason  for  retaining  it. 

f  "  This  is  My  blood  of  the  new  testament  which  is  shed 
for  you  "  (St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark). 


16 

which  Jesus  took,  so  also  it  was  bread  which 
He  brake,  and  which  He  gave  to  the  disciples. 
Examining  the  sentence  itself  strictly  by  the 
rules  of  language,  we  find  that  the  pronoun 
"this,"  also,  plainly  and  necessarily  refers  to 
the  bread  which  He  was  thus  distributing,  being 
used  without  the  noun,  because  the  action  suf- 
ficiently directed  the  attention  of  the  hearers. 
It  is  true,  of  course,  that  in  the  inspired  record 
"this"  is  in  the  neuter  gender,  while  the  Greek 
word  for  "bread"  is  masculine.  But  it  is  im- 
possible to  base  any  doctrine  on  the  difference 
in  gender,  as  implying  that  "this"  does  not  re- 
fer to,  stand  for,  and  mean,  bread.  The  rules 
of  the  Greek  language  required  that  "this"  re- 
ferring to  a  masculine  noun  should  be  neuter  in 
this  sentence  by  attraction  to  the  Greek  word 
for  "  body,"  which  is  neuter. 

It  is  also  certain  that  the  words  "  My  body  " 
referred  to  His  own,  His  one.  His  only  body, 
which  was  once  born  into  the  world,  which  was 
to  be  crucified,  to  be  buried,  to  rise  again  in  a 
glorified  state  and  to  be  taken  up  into  heaven, 


17 

where  it  is  now  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father. 

We  note  also  that  our  Lord  speaks  of  His 
body  in  only  one  aspect,  or  in  one  condition,  at 
one  point  of  time,  as  crucified,  sacrificed, 
"broken  for  you."  He  did  not  say  "This  is 
My  body  which  is  glorified''' 

These  words  ("this,"  meaning  bread,  and 
"  My  body  which  is  broken  for  you  ")  are  joined 
together,  associated,  by  the  word  "  is." 

The  verb  "  to  be  "  is  a  marked  verb  in  every 
language.  It  is  the  most  commonly  used,  and 
yet  the  most  useless  of  verbs.  In  some  of  the 
most  ancient  languages,  as  for  instance,  the 
Aramaic,  or  ancient  Syriac,  spoken  by  our 
Saviour,  "is"  was  always  omitted.  It:  is  quite 
certain,*  for  instance,  that  He  did  not  say 
"Take,  eat;  this  is  My  body,"  but  "take,  eat, 
this  My  body."     It   is  probable   that   He   said, 

*  The  Peshito  Syriac  New  Testament  was  probably  trans- 
lated in  the  first  or  second  century  from  the  Greek.  In  such  a 
translation  it  would  have  been  natural  to  bring  in  "is  "  which 
is  found  in  the  Greek.  But  in  a  copy  of  the  ancient  Syriac 
version,   which  is  now  lying   before  the  writer,  "is"   is  not 


18 

"  I  the  vine,  ye  the  branches."  The  meaning 
of  this  is  perfectly  clear,  quite  as  clear  as  if  He 
said,  "  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches."  The 
higher  polish  of  the  Greek  language  required 
the  use  of  the  verb  "  is  "  where  the  Aramaic 
did  not  use  it,  but  the  meaning  of  the  inspired 
record  is  exactly  the  same  with  the  original 
utterance.  "  This  is  My  body"  in  the  Greek,  is 
identical  with  "This  My  body"  in  the  Aramaic. 

In  Arabic,  again,  the  verb  is  found,  but  there 
is  no  form  of  it  for  the  third  person  of  the  pre- 
sent tense;  there  is  no  "is"  in  Arabic. 

"  Is  "  is  called  the  substantive  verb  because 
it  betokens  existence.  Added  to  a  noun  it 
directs  one's  thought  regarding  the  noun  to  the 
mere  existence  of  the  thing,  animate  or  inani- 
mate, which  the  noun  denotes.  "  The  man  is  " 
leaves  out  of  present  view  all  considerations  re- 
garding him,  except  his  existence. 

found  in  the  records  of  St.  Matthew,  and  St.  Luke,  and  St. 
Paul,  and  does  appear  in  St.  Mark.  This  copy  of  the  Pe- 
shito  version  is  only  seven  hundred  years  old,  which  shows 
how  slow  the  Aramaic  language  was  in  adopting  the  use  of  the 
present  tense  of  the  verb  "  to  be." 


19 

"Is"  is  in  all  languages  an  "intransitive" 
verb,  that  is  to  say,  it  does  not  govern  any  "ob- 
jective case."  Intransitive  verbs  are  so  called 
because  the  action  expressed  by  them  does  not 
"  pass  over  "  to,  does  not  affect  the  objective. 
The  verb  "to  be  "  is  an  intransitive  of  intransi- 
tives,  because  it  does  not  express  any  action, 
or  even  feeling,  but  simply  the  barest,  baldest 
existence,  the  mere  individuality  of  the  subject, 
of  that  of  which  it  is  affirmed.  So  complete  is 
this  intransitiveness  of  the  verb  "  to  be  "  that 
grammarians  ordinarily  style  it  a  copula.  By 
this  they  mean  that  it  serves  merely  to  connect 
two  nouns  for  the  purpose  of  affirming  one  of 
the  other.* 


*  It  is  better  to  treat  "is"  entirely  as  an  intransitive  verb, 
and  to  apply  to  it  the  rules  which  govern  verbs  of  that  class. 
When  an  intransitive  verb,  having  a  noun  for  its  subject,  is  fol- 
lowed by  a  noun,  this  noun  is  called  in  grammar  a  predicate. 
This  noun,  following  the  intransitive  verb,  is  predicated,  af- 
firmed, of  the  subject  of  the  verb,  especially  in  respect  to  the 
action  or  condition  expressed  by  the  verb. 

Take  for  examination  the  sentence,  "She  walks  a  queen." 
The  word  "queen"  is  predicated,  or  affirmed,  of  "she"  in 
the  action  of  walking.     Again,  we  say,  "  She  is  a  queen."     In 


20 

The  effect  of  the  intransitive  verb  is  tempo- 
rarily to  strip  the  subject  of  its  other  qualities, 
in  order  to  give  distinctness,  definiteness  to  the 
affirmation  in  the  noun  predicate. 

The  noun  which  follows  the  verb  is  a  distinct 
affirmation  or  predication  concerning  the  sub- 
ject.    This  predication  or  affirmation  by  means 


this  case  the  verb  expresses,  not  a  special  action,  but  a  gen- 
eral, continued,  and  necessary  state,  which  is  so  completely 
identified  with  the  noun  as  to  present  no  distinguishable  or 
separable  idea.  It  is  "  she  "  in  her  very  being,  in  her  existence, 
it  is  she  herself  of  which  "  queen  "  is  affirmed. 

It  will  be  of  service  in  getting  a  clear  conception  of  the 
office  of  the  verb  "  to  be,"  to  substitute  for  it  the  verb  "  exist." 
"She  is  a  queen  "  is  equivalent  to  "She  exists  a  queen."  "This 
is  My  body  "  is  the  same  as  "  This  exists  My  body."  "Is" 
and  "  exists  "  are  interchangeable  words.  Milton  writes: 
"  By  whom  we  exist  and  cease  to  be." 

Here  plainly  only  the  requirements  of  verse  determined 
whether  he  should  write  "  exist  "  or  "  are,"  "  be  "  or  "  exist." 
Whatever,  therefore,  can  be  said  of  "  She  exists  a  queen,"  can 
be  said  of  "She  is  a  queen."  They  have  absolutely  the  same 
meaning.  She  is,  she  exists,  and  of  this  is  affirmed  the  idea  of 
"  a  queen."  Of  each  alike  of  these  expressions,  "she  walks, 
she  is,  she  exists,  a  queen,"  it  may  be  said  that  the  action  or 
state  expressed  by  the  verb  refers  only  to  its  subject,  not  pas- 
sing over  to  or  affecting  the  noun  predicate,  and  that  noun  is 
another  and  independent  affirmation. 


21 

of  intransitive  verbs  in  cases  where  the  nouns 
are  not  names  of  different  things,  is  sometimes 
absolute  and  sometimes  partial;  and  this  is 
always  determined  by  the  circumstances.  She 
tvalks  a  qneen,  she  is  a  queen,  may  be  spoken  of 
either  Queen  Victoria  or  of  any  untitled  lady. 
Of  Queen  Victoria  the  predications  are  unlim- 
ited; of  the  untitled  lady  it  is  affirmed  either 
that  she  walks  with  that  grace  and  dignity 
which  rightly  pertain  to  a  queen,  or  that  she,  in 
her  being,  in  herself,  has  those  qualities,  those 
graces  of  heart  and  mind  which  are  or  should 
be  the  characteristics  of  a  queen.  In  cases 
where  the  nouns  are  names  of  different  things 
the  predication  is  invariably  partial.  In  the  ex- 
pression His  creditor  is  adamant,  because  credi- 
tor and  adamant  are  two  distinct  material  ex- 
istences, the  predication  is  necessarily  limited 
to  a  quality,  to  the  hard  and  unyielding  quality 
of  the  adamant.  In  our  Lord's  saying,  "  I  am 
the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches,"  He  plainly  did 
not  attribute  the  wood  or  any  of  the  substance 
of  the  vine  to  Himself  and   His  disciples.     It 


23 

was  the  single  quality^  or  circumstance,  of  the 
closeness  of  the  relationship  between  them,  of 
their  vital  dependence  upon  Him.  So  also  it 
was  this  same  quality  which  St.  Paul  attributed 
to  the  Ephesians  when  he  wrote,  "  Ye  are  the 
body  of  Christ,"  or,  again  to  all  Christians  when 
he  wrote,  "  the  Church  which  is  His  body." 
When  we  say  of  a  piece  of  paper.  This  is  a  dol- 
lar, we  predicate  the  dollar,  not  as  to  the  in- 
trinsic substance  of  the  gold,  but  only  as  to  the 
purchasing  quality,  as  to  the  power,  or  virtue, 
or  efficacy  in  commercial  transactions.  The 
gold  or  silver  of  which  the  dollar  is  made,  be- 
came a  dollar  by  coinage.  As  a  coin,  it  had 
the  added  quality  of  being  a  means  of  exchange 
in  commercial  transactions.  This  added  quality 
the  Government  bestowed  also  upon  the  almost 
worthless  paper. 

To  say,  therefore,  of  the  paper,  TJiis  is  a  dol- 
lar, is  to  predicate  of  it  this  added  quality,  to 
affirm  that  it  shares  with  the  dollar  not  the  sub- 
stance or  the  intrinsic  qualities  of  the  gold  dol- 
lar but  the  quality  of  a  certain  value  in  buying 


23 

and  selling,  that  the  paper  and  the  dollar  have 
an  equal  power,  the  same  efficacy,  though  they 
are  two  different  and  distinct  things.  From 
this  it  results  that  predicating  the  value  or 
power  in  one  thing,  of  some  other  thing,  makes 
the  one  thing  a  representative  of  the  other. 
The  verb  "  is  "  means  always  the  same  thing, 
namely,  "being,"  but  the  idea  of  "represents,"  or 
"  stands  for,"  etc.,  is  the  result  oi  the  partial  pre- 
dication, the  predication  of  this  or  that  quality.* 
There   are   certain    unalterable  rules   which 

*  When  one  material  thing  is  predicated  of  another  thing, 
only  its  qualities  are  thus  predicated  and  almost  or  quite  inva- 
riably it  is  only  one  quality.  The  substance  of  a  material  thing 
is  never  predicated  of  another  thing.  Thus,  curiously  enough, 
Romanists  place  themselves  in  ulter  opposition  to  the  absolute 
meaning  of  language  in  expressions  of  the  class  adopted  by  our 
Lord, — "This  is  My  body," — wlaen  they  assert  that  He  predi- 
cated the  substance  of  His  body,  of  the  bread:  that  while  its 
form,  taste  and  appearance  remain  in  all  respects  the  same,  its 
substance  is  that  of  the  body  of  Christ.  A  change  of  substance 
is  never  expressed  or  intimated  by  such  forms  of  speech.  They 
always,  invariably,  declare  a  sameness  of  some  quality  and  that 
only  between  the  two  material  things.  This  quality  may  be  an 
inherent  quality,  as  the  hardness  of  the  adamant,  or  an  extran- 
eous, conveniional,  added  quality,  as  the  purchasing  power  of 
the  dollar. 


24 

are  tacitly  made  the  basis  of  the  use  of  these 
predicative  expressions.  In  what  respect  or 
degree  one  noun  is  predicated  of  another,  what 
quality  of  one  noun  is  predicated  of  another,  is 
determined  not  by  the  predicating  sentence, 
but  by  some  circumstance  or  statement  outside 
or  beyond  it.  As  we  have  seen,  a  title,  or 
office,  for  instance,  though  it  is  not  a  material 
thing  and  has  no  material  substance,  can  be  pre- 
dicated not  absolutely,  but  only  as  to  certain 
qualities,  or  in  certain  respects,  of  one  who  does 
not  hold  that  office  or  title.  Still  more  impos- 
sible is  it  that  one  material  thing  can  be  abso- 
lutely, completely,  altogether,  predicated  of 
another  thing.  For  that  would  be  to  declare 
that  there  is  no  respect  in  which  they  differ — to 
declare  their  physical  identity,  and  the  fact  of 
their  being  two  things  prevents  their  being  one 
and  the  same  thing.*     They  must,  for  instance. 


*  This  impossibility  of  two  things  being  one  and  the  same 
thing  leads  Roman  theologians  into  a  singular  illogicalness. 
We  will  quote  from  MuUer's  "  Familiar  Explanation  of  Chris- 
tian Doctrine,"  a  book  having  the  approbation  of  the  Sacred 


25 

in  order  to  be  cognized  by  us,  in  order  to  exist, 
occupy  each  its  own  space  and  not  the  space 
held  by  the  other,  and  this  is  absolute  proof  of 


Congregation  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Faith,  and  the  impri- 
inatiir  of  Dr.  Bayley,  late  Archbishop  of  Baltimore. 

"  Q.  How  do  you  know  that  Jesus  Christ  gave  His  true 
body  ? 

"  A.  Because  Jesus  Christ  did  not  say  in  this  bread,  or  with 
this  bread — but  He  said,  '  This  is  My  body.' 

"  Q.  As  soon  as  Jesus  had  spoken  those  words  what  became 
of  the  bread  in  His  hands? 

"A.  Quicker  than  a  flash  of  lightning  that  bread  was 
changed  into  His  body. 

"  Q.  What  follows  from  this? 

"A.  That,  after  these  words,  the  bread  did  not  remain, 
because  it  is  impossible  that  that  which  is  flesh  should  be  at  the 
same  time  bread." 

The  Roman  doctor  has  well  stated  that  our  Lord  said, 
"  This  is  my  body,"  and  that  He  did  not  say  in  this  bread  or 
with  this  bread  ;  but  He  should  have  added  that  He  did  not 
say  under  this  bread,  or  this  bread  is  changed  into  or  becomes  My 
body,  or  this  bread  does  not  remain. 

The  Roman  doctor,  too,  is  thoroughly  illogical  in  saying 
that  because,  as  he  claims,  the  bread  was  changed  into  Christ's 
body,  therefore  the  bread  did  not  remain.  Plainly  the  bread 
muht  have  continued  to  be,  if  it  was  to  be  anything  whatever. 
If  it  zvere  true  that  the  bread  became  Christ's  body,  that  which 
was  His  body  previously  must  have  ceased  to  be,  or  at  least 
must  have  ceased  to  have  the  quality  of  being  His  body,  must 
have  ceased  to  be  His  body. 


26 

their  not  being  physically  identical.  This  alone 
shows  that  they  are  not  wholly  the  same,  but 
the  same  in  some  respect.     To  declare  that  two 


And  again,  the  Roman  theologian  ought  to  know  that  he 
must  not  be  driven  by  one  impossibility  into  inventing  another. 
He  acknowledges  that  it  is  impossible  for  one  thing  to  be  at 
the  same  time  another  thing,  but  he  does  not  cure  the  difficulty 
by  saying  that  the  one  thing  becomes  another  thing.  For  that 
also  is  an  impossibility.  The  Romanist  is  fond,  for  example, 
of  quoting  the  miracle  of  the  water  turned  into  wine.  But 
that  was  not  the  changing  of  one  thing  into  another  thing.  It 
was  not,  for  instance,  the  placing  of  two  firkins,  one  of  water 
and  one  of  wine,  side  by  side,  and  changing  the  firkin  of  water 
into  the  firkin  of  wine.  The  miracle  was  the  changing  of  the 
nature  of  one  and  the  same  thing — of  the  same  water  in  the 
same  firkin.  It  was  not  the  changing  of  one  thing  into  another, 
but  simply  the  changing  of  one  thing. 

When  the  Romanist,  or  theologian  of  any  other  school, 
argues  for  a  miracle  underlying  our  Lord's  declaration,  from 
the  miracle  of  the  water  changed  into  wine,  he  is  reasoning 
from  analogy.  But  the  miracle  at  Cana  and  the  alleged  mira- 
cle of  transubstantiation  are  not  analogous.  If  they  were  anal- 
ogous the  miracle  at  Cana  must  have  been  performed  thus: 
Two  firkins,  one  of  water  and  one  of  wine,  must  have  been  set 
before  our  Lord,  the  firkin  of  water  corresponding  to  the  bread, 
and  the  firkin  of  wine  to  Christ's  body.  Then  the  one  firkin  (of 
water)  must  have  been  changed  into  the  other  firkin  (of  wine). 
This  is  not  what  St.  John  recorded  and  is  inconceivable,  not 
supposable  (if  it  were  possible,  it  would  require  the  displace- 
ment, the  destruction,  of  the  firkin  of  wine).     Analogy  further 


27 

things  are  one,  or  that  different  things  are  the 
same,  or  that  one  thing  is  identically  another, 
which  is  only  one  form  of  saying  that  two  things 
are  one  and  the  same  thing,  is  to  declare  that 
words  have  no  meaning.  To  predicate  one 
thing  of  another,  therefore,  is  not  to  predicate 
it  altogether,  not  to  declare  its  identity,  its 
sameness  with  the  other,  but  to  declare  the 
sameness  of  some  one  or  more  of  their  qualities 
or  their  sameness  in  some  respect.  What  or 
wherein  or  for  what  purpose  that  partial  same- 
ness is,  does  not  usually  appear  from  the  predi- 
cating sentence.* 

requires  that  the  firkin  of  water,  being  changed  into  the  firkin 
of  wine,  should  still  retain  its  separate,  independent  existence, 
apart  from  the  other,  and  moreover,  that  the  taste  and  the 
color  and  all  the  other  qualities  of  the  water  should  remain  the 
same  as  before,  still  unmistakably  water.  Verily  this  would 
be  a  barren  miracle!  God  be  praised  that  the  miracle  at  Cana 
was  a  miracle  indeed! 

The  Romanist  ought  to  recognize  that  it  is  impossible  to 
change  one  thing  into  another  already  existing,  and  still  more 
inconceivable  is  it  to  effect  such  a  change  that  the  same  thing 
may  have  two  or  more  separate  existences  at  the  same  time. 

*  An  essential  part  of  the  identity  of  anything  is  its  history. 
One  human  body  for  instance  differs  from  another  human  body 


28 

In  the  declaration  of  our  Lord,  "This  is  My 
body,"  the  words  "My  body"  are  predicated 
of"  this,"  which  is  a  pronoun  standing  for  the 
noun  "  bread."*     In  what  respect,  how  far,  as 

in  respect  to  the  fact  of  its  birth,  and  this  difference  can  never 
be  done  away  with.  Completed  history  cannot  be  changed. 
Our  Lord's  body  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  but  the  bread 
was  not  born  of  Mary  and  that  quality  could  never  be  imparted 
to  the  bread.  When  our  Lord  from  the  cross  said  to  His 
mother,  "  Behold  thy  Son  "  and  to  the  beloved  disciple,  "  Be- 
hold ihy  mother,"  He  declared  that  St.  John  was  the  son  of 
Mary,  but  He  did  not  declare  that  he  was  born  of  her  nor  did 
He  make  it  so.  He  simply  attributed  to  or  bestowed  upon  St. 
John  a  single  quality  of  sonship  to  Mary,  namely,  the  relation 
and  duty  of  dependence  and  protection  that  arise  from  sonship. 
Nor  did  this  mislead  the  beloved  disciple.  Strong  and  unre- 
served as  the  expression  was,  St.  John  yet  understood  it,  "and 
from  that  hour  that  disciple  took  her  to  his  own  home."  So 
as  to  the  bread,  our  Lord  asserted  it  to  be  His  body,  but  in  so 
doing  He  did  not  assert  that  it  had  all  the  qualities  and  sub- 
stance of  His  body. 

The  analogy  between  our  Lord's  sayings.  This  is  My  body, 
and,  Behold  thy  son,  is  much  more  complete  than  is  commonly 
supposed.  He  attributed  in  the  one  case  a  certain  quality  of 
His  body  to  the  bread.  In  the  other  case  He  attributed  a 
quality  of  His  soul  and  heart  to  St.  John.  The  expressions  are 
equally  unreserved  and  explicit,  but  their  limitations  are  equally 
apparent. 

*  It  does  not  matter,  so  far  as   our   inquiry  is   concerned, 
whether   "this"  referred  to  the  bread,  or,    as   the   Romanist 


29 

to  what  quality,  or  purpose,  or  use,  does  He 
thus  predicate  it  ?  That  is  to  say,  inasmuch  as, 
occupying  each  its  own  space  and  so  being  dif- 
ferent things,  they  are  not  the  same  things,  and 
therefore  the  predication  cannot  be  absolute, 
complete,  in  how  far  is  the  predication  made  ? 
What  attribute,  or  quality,  or  use,  of  His  body 
does  our  Lord  attribute  to  the  bread  ?  What  of 
His  own  body  does  our  Lord  lend  to,  or  bestow 
upon  the  bread  ?  There  is  a  sameness  in  some 
respect,  of  the  bread  with  Christ's  body.  As  to 
what  the  partial  sameness  is,  the  words  them- 
selves convey  no  intimation.  If  our  Lord  had 
said  or  done  nothing  further  than  to  utter  the 
words,  "  This  is  My  body,"  the  disciples  would 
have  had  no  clue  as  to  His  meaning. 

Hence  it  appears  that  theological  writers 
have  commonly  done  great  despite  to  our  Lord, 
by  garbling  His  saying,  in  separating  the  words, 
"  This  is  My  body,"  from  the  remainder  of  His 


says,  to  a  something  into  which  the  bread  had  been   changed. 
In  either  case  it  had  a  distinct,  distinguishable  existence. 


30 

declaration    and    considering   them    by   them- 
selves.* 

It  is  the  first  principle  of  exegesis  that  a  pas- 
sage of  Holy  Scripture  shall  be  considered  in 
connection  with  the  context.  It  is  a  most  fla- 
grant violation  of  this  principle  to  take  from  the 
middle  of  a  sentence,  of  a  single  statement, 
three  or  four  words  only  and  on  them  to  build 
human  doctrine.  It  is  against  all  honesty  to 
quote  certain  words  of  a  man's  saying,  without 
also  giving  his  qualifying  words.     It  is,  there- 

*  In  this  flagrant  mutilation  of  our  Lord's  declaration,  is 
found  the  true  explanation  of  the  strange  fact  that  what  our 
Lord  intended,  as  is  evident  from  His  prayer  made  in  the  same 
hour,  to  be  a  very  bond  of  unity  among  all  Christians,  has 
been  an  unceasing  cause  of  strife  and  division.  This  state  of 
things  has  seemed  to  be  a  reproach  not  only  to  Christianity, 
but  to  its  Founder  as  well.  It  has  seemed  as  if  He  must  have 
ill  chosen  His  language  to  be  so  misunderstood,  or  to  be  un- 
derstood so  variously,  or  as  if  He  had  purposely  made  His 
meaning  ambiguous,  like  the  Delphic  oracle,  which  uttered  dis- 
connected words,  that  were  afterward  put  together,  or  inter- 
preted, by  the  priests  to  suit  their  own  purposes.  The  real 
fault  lies  in  this,  that  Christ's  words,  clear  and  distinct  as  He 
uttered  them,  have  been  disconnected,  we  will  not  say  by  his 
priests,  but  by  theological  writers,  and  being  thus  made  life- 
less and  unmeaning,  have  been  interpreted  by  each,  or  by  each 


31 

fore,  against  the  fundamental  principle  of  exe- 
gesis, and  against  common  honesty  to  quote  the 
words,  "  This  is  My  body,"  apart,  separated 
from  the  remainder  of  the  sentence. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  cutting  out  of  the 
words,  "  This  is  My  body,"  from  the  rest  of  the 
sentence  in  which  they  occur,  and  by  which  our 
Saviour  gave  them  meaning  and  explained 
them,  has  made  them  so  perfectly  unmeaning, 
has  so  emptied  them  of  meaning,  that  men  have 
found  it  possible  to  put  into  them  any  and 
every  meaning, 

school,  to  suit  their  emergency.  Hence  has  come  the  fact 
that  the  vast  body  of  theological  writing  on  this  simple  and 
sublime  saying  of  our  Lord,  is  a  mass  of  controversy. 

It  is  a  grave  acccusation,  but  it  needs  no  proof  here  that  all 
this  theology  is  based  positively  or  negatively,  on  the  words 
"  This  is  My  body"  taken  by  themselves,  torn  from  their  con- 
text, nay,  even  from  the  remainder  of  their  own  sentence. 
Rome  and  Geneva  alike  have  been  guilty  in  this  respect. 

It  follows,  of  course,  that  every  theory  which  has  no  other 
basis  than  this  grave  error,  must  itself  be  erroneous. 

For  the  confirmation  of  our  faith  let  us  repeat  to  ourselves 
here  that  our  Lord  made  no  uncertain  or  ambiguous  utterance, 
but  that  the  ambiguity  and  uncertainty  which  have  been  thrown 
around  the  Lord's  Supper,  have  been  manufactured  by  men, 
even  devout  men,  out  of  a  mutilation  of  our  Lord's  saying. 


32 

Others  again,  forgetful  or  unknowing  that  the 
context  supplied  the  meaning,  and  being  un- 
able to  find  definite  meaning  in  the  words  thus 
wrongly,  impiously  taken  by  themselves,  have 
concluded  that  the  Saviour  meant  to  conceal 
His  meaning  in  them,  and  so  have  resigned 
themselves  to  a  darkened,  uncertain,  undiscern- 
ing,  unreal,  and  unhelpful  worship  in  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

Plainly  our  Lord  did  not  attribute  the  per- 
sonal appearance,  the  figure  and  face  of  His 
body  to  the  bread.  He  had  not  moulded  the 
bread  into  such  form  that  He  could  attribute  to 
it  a  likeness  of  Himself,  as  the  sculptor  can  say 
of  his  clay  or  marble,  "  This  is  Csesar."  He  did 
not  say  that  it  had  flesh  and  bones  and  the 
power  of  suffering,  as  His  body  had.  He  did 
not  say  that  it  was  to  stand  in  judgment,  to  be 
buffeted,  to  be  scourged,  to  be  crucified,  nor  did 
these  things  come  to  it.  It  had  not  hands  and 
feet  to  be  pierced  by  the  cruel  nails,  nor  a  fore- 
head to  wear  the  crown  of  thorns.  His  body 
was  to  be  buried,  to  be  raised  again,  to  beglori- 


33 

fied,  to  be  taken  into  heaven,  but  it  was  not  so 
with  the  bread.  In  none  of  these  respects  did 
Christ  predicate  His  body  of  the  bread.  That 
is  to  say,  the  bread  was  not  His  body  in  any  of 
these  respects. 

What  then  ?  For  what  purpose  was  the 
bread  our  Lord's  body  .''  He  Himself  declared 
this,  He  gave  definiteness  and  the  necessary 
limitation,  when  He  said,  "Take,  eat."  It  was 
in  respect  to  being  eaten  that  our  Lord's  body, 
sacrificed,  "  broken  for  you,"  was  predicated  of 
the  bread. 

This  is  quite  as  far  as  the  words  of  our  Lord, 
carefully  weighed  and  tested  by  the  rules  of 
language,  carry  us,  His  disciples  in  this  far-off 
century.  Why  His  sacrificed  body  was  to  be 
partaken  of  does  not  appear  at  this  point  in  our 
investigation,  but  from  the  very  nature  of  things 
it  is  evident  that  if  there  were  such  a  condition 
or  necessity,  there  was  equally  a  necessity  that 
some  equivalent  substitute  for  that  body  must 
be  found  for  this  partaking.  For  if  it  were  pos- 
sible to  partake  of  the  crucified  body  of  our 


34 

dear  Lord,  it  was  certainly  impossible  to  think 
such  a  thing.  If  it  were  physically  possible,  it 
was  morally,  ethically  impossible.  That  our 
Lord's  meaning  was  apparent  to  His  disciples 
is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  no  explanation  of 
His  words  is  here  recorded.  We  must  there- 
fore place  ourselves  in  their  circumstances  if  we 
would  know  the  full  import  of  this  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  The  meaning  of  our  Lord's 
words  in  instituting  the  Holy  Communion  is 
made  evident  by  an  analysis  of  them  through 
the  rules  of  language;  the  reason  for  them,  for 
the  wonderful  results  that  flow  from  them,  must 
be  sought  in  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  were  spoken.  We  therefore  leave  the 
study  of  the  sentence  here,  and  go  back  to 
those  circumstances. 

The  disciples  were  gathered  with  our  Lord  at 
a  celebration  of  the  Jewish  Passover.  The 
paschal  lamb  had  been  sacrificed,  and  they 
were  partaking  of  the  same  in  accordance  with 
the  divine  command.     This  partaking  was  ac- 


35 

cepted,  looked  upon,  by  them  as  a  necessary, 
an  essential  part  or  adjunct  of  the  paschal  sac- 
rifice. At  the  institution  of  this  sacrifice,  cen- 
turies before,  God  had  ordered  not  only  that  the 
lamb  should  be  slain  and  its  blood  sprinkled 
upon  the  lintel  and  two  sideposts  of  the  door  of 
the  house,  but  that  the  lamb  should  be  eaten  by 
the  household.  It  is  specially  to  be  noted  also, 
that  the  Passover — which  was  the  most  solemn 
sacrifice  among  the  Jews,  and  which  God  gave 
to  that  nation,  not  only  before  the  law,  but 
even  before  the  Ten  Commandments — was  the 
one  essential  offering  of  the  Jews,  and  must  be 
partaken  of,  if  one  would  avoid  the  penalty  of 
excommunication. 

There  must  always  be  some  personal  act  of 
obedience  or  faith,  in  connection  with  God's 
saving  ordinances,  for  each  individual  to  appro- 
priate, to  make  his  own,  to  take  for  himself  the 
benefits.  Those  who  would  be  saved  must 
look  upon  the  brazen  serpent  that  was  lifted  up. 
He  who  would  not  thus  look,  must  die  even 
though  he  were  in  the  very  shadow  of  it,  even 


36 

though  his  arms  were  clasped  about  it.  The 
ten  lepers  were  commanded  to  go  show  them- 
selves unto  the  priests,  but  as  they  went  they 
were  healed.  The  paschal  lamb  was  slain  on 
that  first  awful  night,  in  the  midst  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, but  the  destroying  angel  passed  over 
only  the  houses  in  which  the  lamb  had  been 
eaten. 

It  seems  to  have  been  a  divinely  ordained 
principle  that  he  who  would  partake  of  the 
benefits  of  a  sacrifice,  must,  as  the  doing  of  an 
act  of  faith,  partake  of  the  sacrifice  itself 

With  this  practice  and  obligation,  then,  of 
partaking  of  the  lamb  sacrificed,  the  disciples 
were  perfectly  familiar.  Indeed,  when  our  Lord 
came  to  earth,  all  mankind  joined  sacrificing 
and  feasting  together,  heathen  nations,  as  we 
have  said  above,  having  borrowed  the  practice 
from  the  chosen  nation.  Among  the  Jews 
some  sacrifices,  as  the  burnt  offerings  and  sin 
offering,  were  not  accompanied  with  feasting. 
But  the  greater  number  of  their  sacrifices  were 
so  accompanied.     They  were,  in  fact,  called  in- 


37 

discriminately  "feast"  and  "sacrifice,"  even 
so  that  the  same  Hebrew  word  signifies  "  feast  " 
and  "  sacrifice."  Even  before  the  giving  of  the 
law,  Moses  and  Aaron,  appealing  to  Pharaoh 
(Exod.  V.  I,  3),  use  the  expressions  "holding  a 
feast  to  God  "  and  "  sacrificing  to  the  Lord  "  as 
meaning  the  same  thing.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
also  that  Pharaoh's  answer  shows  clearly  that 
he  understood  perfectly  the  meaning  of  the  first 
phrase.  His  answer  was,  "Who  is  the  Lord 
that  I  should  obey  His  voice .''  I  know  not  the 
Lord  "  {i.e.,  He  is  not  one  of  my  gods,  to  whom 
I  make  feasts).  Jacob  offered  sacrifices  upon 
the  Mount  and  called  his  brethren  to  eat  bread, 
and  they  did  eat  bread  (Gen.  xxxi.  54).  "  Eat- 
ing bread "  is  a  phrase  used  in  Scripture  for 
feasting,  and  thus  it  is  evident  that  Jacob  made 
a  feast  to  his  relatives  of  the  cattle  which  he 
had  offered  in  sacrifice.  A  further  explanation 
of  this  may  be  found  in  Lev.  xxi.  6,  17  and  21, 
where  animals  slain  in  sacrifice  are  called  "  the 
bread  of  God." 

But  we  are  brought  more  clearly  face  to  face 


38 

with  the  prevalence  of  this  method  of  worship, 
in  the  New  Testament.  Very  early  the  apostles 
wrote  letters  to  the  Antioch  disciples  fActs 
XV.  22-29)  that  they  should  abstain  from  meats 
offered  to  idols.*  Again,  St.  Paul  wrote  to  the 
Corinthians  (I.  Cor.  x.  18),  "Are  not  they 
which  eat  of  the  sacrifices  partakers  of  the  altar  .'' 
What  say  I  then  .'*  that  the  idol  is  anything,  or 
that  which  is  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols  is  any- 
thing .''  But  I  say  that  the  things  which  the 
Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils  and 
not  to  God,  and  I  would  not  that  ye  should 
have  fellowship  with  devils.  Ye  cannot  drink 
the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of  devils,  ye 
cannot  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  table  and  of 
the  table  of  devils."     And  further  on  in  the 


*  The  writer  has  very  recently  talked  with  a  Syrian  Christian 
of  the  same  nation  and  speaking  the  same  language  with  our 
Lord  (though  the  Aramaic  has  been  modified,  somewhat  mod- 
ernized, during  the  centuries  of  the  Christian  era),  who  has  fre- 
quently seen  his  Syrian  pastor  promptly  inquire  as  to  gifts  of 
meat  sent  him  by  his  Mohammedan  neighbors,  whether  they 
had  been  offered  in  sacrifice,  and  as  promptly  return  them  if 
they  had  been  so  offered. 


39 

same  chapter,  "  If  any  of  them  that  believe  not 
bid  you  to  afeasty  whatsoever  is  set  before  you, 
eat,  asking  no  questions  for  conscience'  sake. 
But  if  any  man  say  unto  you,  This  is  offered  in 
sacrifice  unto  idols,  eat  not  for  his  sake  that 
shewed  it  and  for  conscience'  sake."  All  this 
shows  that  eating  of  sacrifices,  partaking  of  an 
altar,  was  looked  upon  and  was  actually  prac- 
tised as  a  part  of  the  sacrifice  itself,  as  an  act 
of  worship  addressed  to  the  one  true  God,  or  to 
a  false  god.  It  was  in  fact  the  appointed  way 
in  which  men  joined  with  the  offerer  in  making 
a  sacrifice. 

All  this  is  enough  to  show  that  the  disciples, 
even  if  they  had  not  been  just  then  engaged  in 
partaking  of,  in  completing,  the  sacrifice  of  a 
Passover,  must  easily,  immediately,  have  com- 
prehended our  Lord's  meaning.  No  further  ex- 
planation was  needed.  He  had,  indeed,  for 
some  days  been  instructing  them  as  to  His  near 
coming  death,  but  even  if  He  had  not  done  so, 
even  if  He  had  not  added  the  words  "  broken 
for   you,"  His   simple  command,   "Take,   eat; 


40 

this  is  My  body,"  could  have  had  no  other 
meaning  to  them  than  that  His  body  was  to  be 
sacrificed  for  them,  and  that  the  bread  was  the 
substitute  for,  or  representative  of,  the  same  as, 
that  body,  in  order  that  they  might  partake  of 
the  sacrifice. 

Thus  it  appears  from  a  careful  study  of  our 
Lord's  words,  observing  the  absolute  rules  of 
language,  that  our  Lord  affirmed  or  predicated 
His  body  of  the  bread  in  one  and  only  one  re- 
spect,— as  to  one  quality.  Keeping  in  mind 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  words  were 
spoken  and  the  whole  sacrificial  system  of  the 
Jews,  it  appears  that  it  was  not  an  inherent 
quality  of  that  body  which  He  thus  attributed 
to  the  bread.  It  was  the  accident,  using  the 
term  philosophically,  the  quality,  of  its  being 
sacrificed.  Not  as  a  body,  but  as  a  sacrifice, 
did  He  predicate  His  body  of  the  bread.  He 
ascribed  nothing  human  to  the  bread.  It  was 
the  quality*  of  His  body  broken,  of  its   being 

*  The  only  quality  of  the  paschal  lamb  that  had  an  essential, 
a  religious,  a  spiritual  value,  was  its  extraneous,  not  inherent 


41 

something  sacrificed,  of  a  sacrifice  to  be  eaten, 
that  He  thus  attributed.  In  short,  our  Lord's 
body  was  to  be  sacrificed  as  a  peace  offering,  a 
redemption    offering.*     It    must    therefore    be 

yet  real,  quality  or  attribute  of  being  an  ordained  sacrifice. 
The  fact  that  the  sacrifice  on  the  Church's  altar,  which  is  the 
cross  on  Calvary,  was  the  body  of  our  Lord,  does  not  change 
the  fact  that  its  relation  to  the  partaker  resides  in  its  being  a 
sacrifice.  Of  it  as  of  the  paschal  lamb,  the  quality  of  its  being 
a  sacrifice  is  all  that  avails  in  its  eating  or  that  in  any  way 
brings  benefit  to  the  partaker.  The  quality  of  being  the  body 
of  our  Lord  gives  an  unprecedented,  a  unique  value,  to  the 
sacrifice,  makes  it  a  perfect  satisfaction  for  sin.  By  that  value 
Christians  are  gainers  when  they  partake  of  the  sacrifice.  But 
still  its  only  relauon,  and  its  all-sufficient  relation,  to  them  is 
that  of  a  sacrifice,  of  an  all-sufficient  sacrifice. 

We  are  not  taught  that  the  purpose  of  partaking,  is  that  we 
may  partake  of  the  inherent  qualities  of  the  body  of  our  Lord, 
any  more  than  tliat  the  Jews  might  partake  of  those  of  the 
paschal  lambs.  Indeed,  rather,  it  is  because  we  are  not,  even 
by  the  way  as  it  were,  to  partake  of  the  inherent  qualities  of 
that  body,  that  bread  is  a  substitute  for  that  body  sacrificed. 

*  It  is  commonly  and  rightly  held  that  in  our  Lord's  sacrifice 
on  the  cross  all  the  sacrifices  were  fulfilled  which  had  been 
hitherto  enjoined  by  God  upon  His  people.  But  we  are  con- 
sidering here  not  the  nature  or  complete  significance  of  that 
sacrifice,  but  the  significance  of  our  Lord's  command  "  Take, 
eat."  Plainly  the  command  to  partake  of  it  had  no  reference 
to  it,  for  instance,  as  a  whole  burnt  offering,  which  was  not  to 
be  partaken  of,  but  to  Christ  as  "our  Passover." 


42 

eaten.  But  this  was  impossible,  or  was  to  be 
avoided,  for  many  reasons,  which  need  not  the 
mentioning.  Therefore  our  Lord,  before  His 
Father  and  before  men,  made  bread  equal, 
equivalent  to,  the  same  as  {i.e..,  the  representa- 
tive with  full  efficacy,*  the  representative  be- 
cause it  had  the  same  efficacy  or  force  for  this 
purpose).  His  body  in  the  partaking  of  the  altar 
on  Calvary,  in  the  sacrificial  feast  that  must 
accompany  the  sacrifice  of  His  body. 

Christ  did  not  command  that  the  bread  should 
be  sacrificed.  Therefore  we  are  not  so  to  sac- 
rifice it.t  Indeed,  His  declaring  the  bread  to 
be  His  body  is  in  its  effect  a  prohibition  of  our 
thus  sacrificing  it.  For  that  body,  it  may  truly 
be  said,  is  the  one  thing  which  we  cannot  thus 

*  That  our  Lord  had  the  right  and  the  power  to  give  this 
equivalence  or  efficacy  to  the  bread  is  practically  denied  by 
those  who  assert  that  He  actually  changed  the  bread  into  His 
body.  Therefore  what  seems  on  the  face  of  it  to  be  a  trium" 
phant  assertion  of  divine  power  is  really  a  denial  of  it.  It  is  a 
belittling  of  Christ's  power  to  declare  that  in  order  to  convey 
the  benefits  of  His  body  by  the  bread,  He  actually  changed 
the  bread  into  His  body. 

f  "  Sacrifice  isnowno  part  of  the  Church  ministry"  (Hooker, 
Eccl.  Pol.  v.,  ch.  Ixxviii.,  2). 


43 

sacrifice  because  it  has  already  been  sacrificed. 
It  was  sacrificed  once  for  all,  having  been  of- 
fered for  that  sacrifice  by  Christ  Himself,  who 
alone  could  thus  offer  it.  It  was  not  to  be  sac- 
rificed again.  But  being  thus  once  sacrificed  it 
remains  still  to  be  partaken  of.  By  this  par- 
taking, not  by  our  sacrificing,  we  are  joined  with 
Christ  in  His  making  the  offering  for  the  sac- 
rifice. The  sacrificial  feast  upon,  the  partaking 
of,  our  Lord's  sacrificed  body  was  begun  by  the 
disciples  and  brethren  immediately  on  the  com- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  has  been  continued 
until  now,  and  will  be  continued  through  all 
time.  And  this  is  accomplished,  this  is  made 
possible,  through  Christ  having  declared  and 
made  bread  and  wine  to  be  the  same  as  His 
body  and  blood  for  this  purpose. 

The  true  Christian  altar  is  the  cross  on  Cal- 
vary which  bore,  through  the  hours  of  that  awe- 
ful  day,  the  precious  sacrifice  of  the  dear  body 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour.  From  that  one  sac- 
rifice went  the  Church's  High  Priest,  the  "  High 
Priest  over  the  house  of  God,"  by  His  own  blood 


44 

entering  in  *' once  into  the  holy  place,  having 
obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us,"  entering 
into  "  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  pres- 
ence of  God  for  us."  At  that  altar  was  shed 
•'  the  blood  of  Christ  who  through  the  eternal 
Spirit  offered  Himself  without  spot."  At  that 
altar  was  sacrificed  "  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
once,"  "  the  one  sacrifice  of  sins  forever."  At 
that  altar  was  made  "  a  full,  perfect  and  suf- 
ficent  sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world." 

The  Church  has,  it  is  true,  always  applied 
sacrificial  terms  to  some  of  her  acts.  In  her 
liturgy  she  bids  us  pray  God  to  "accept  this 
our  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,"  but  in 
doing  this  she  does  not  teach  us  to  presume  to 
think  of  the  fruit  of  our  lips  as  in  any  way  ap- 
proaching in  kind  or  in  degree  the  sacrificed 
body  of  our  Lord.  In  her  liturgy,  too,  she  bids 
her  priests  say  "  Here  we  offer  and  present 
unto  Thee,  O  Lord,  ourselves,  our  souls  and 
bodies,  to  be  a  reasonable,  holy,  and  living  sac- 
rifice unto  Thee."     But  in  this  she  is  very  far 


45 

from  likening  their  offering  of  themselves  to 
Christ's  offering  of  Himself,  apart  from  the  gaze 
of  men,  in  the  silence  of  Gethsemane,  when 
His  sweat  became  as  it  were  great  drops  of 
blood  falling  down  upon  the  ground,  and  when 
He  made  His  tremendous,  threefold,  thrice  re- 
peated offering*  in  that  solemn  prayer,  "Fa- 
ther, if  Thou  be  willing,  remove  this  cup  from 
Me,  nevertheless,  not  My  will,  but  Thine  be 
done." 

The  cross  on  Calvary  is  the  Church's  altar, 
and  all  her  members  must  be  partakers  of  that 


*  It  is  singular  that  so  little  attention  has  been  given  to  the 
fact  that  our  Lord's  offering  was  truly  made  in  Gethsemane.  It 
is  his  agony,  not  the  tremendous  significance  of  His  act,  that  is 
commonly  spoken  of.  But  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, almost  in  so  many  words  interpreted  our  Lord's  prayer 
in  Gethsemane  to  be  His  offering  of  Himself.  What  clearer 
statement  could  be  made  of  that  offering  and  of  its  blessed  re- 
sult, than  in  the  words:  "  Who  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  having 
offered  up  prayers  and  supplications  with  strong  crying  and 
tears  unio  Him  that  was  able  to  save  Him  from  death,  and 
having  been  heard  for  his  godly  fear,  though  He  was  a  son, 
yet  learned  He  obedience  by  the  things  which  He  suffered,  and 
having  been  made  perfect  He  became  unto  all  them  that  obey 
Him  the  author  of  eternal  salvation."     (Heb.  v.  7,  8,  9.). 


46 

altar.  The  sacrifice  made  there  must  be  fol- 
lowed by  the  sacrificial  feast.  We  have  an 
altar*  whereof  they  have  no  right  to  partake 
who  do  not  acknowledge  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 
of  God.  But  it  is  the  right  of  Christ's  disciples 
from  the  day  the  sacrifice  was  consummated 
unto  this  time  and  until  His  coming  again. 
Not  alone  those  few  faithful  ones  who  were 
gathered  about  the  cross,  when  Jesus  cried, 
'*  It  is  finished,"  who  yet  were  to  wait  forty 
and  ten  days  before  they  entered  upon  the 
feast,  not  alone  these,  but  all  the  faithful  through 
all  the  ages,  may  join  in  the  feast.  For  Christ 
hath  declared  that,  for  this  purpose,  bread  and 
wine  are  the  authoritative  equivalents  or  repre- 
sentatives of  His  body  and  His  blood. 

We  reach  therefore  this  conclusion,  that  in 
what  is  called  the  instituting  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, our  Lord  was  establishing  no  new  princi- 

*  We  have  an  altar.  That  altar  either  is  the  cross  of  Christ 
on  which  Christ  was  immolated  for  us,  or  Christ  Himself  in 
whom  and  by  whom  we  offer  our  prayers. — St.  Thomas  Aquinas, 

Exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


47 

pie  of  worship,  and  made  no  new  institution. 
He  did  not  change  or  contravene  God's  law  of 
worship.  His  own  body  was  to  be  sacrificed, 
and,  by  God's  law,  the  sacrifice  must  be  par- 
taken of  by  those  who  would  apply  or  gain  to 
themselves  the  benefits  thereof.  The  nature 
and  the  conditions  and  the  circumstances  of 
His  body,  of  the  sacrifice,  forbade  its  being  par- 
taken of  even  by  those  immediately  present  at 
the  sacrifice,  still  less  by  all  His  disciples 
through  all  time.  Therefore,  to  enable  men  to 
comply  with  the  requirement  of  God's  un- 
changeable law  regarding  worship  by  sacrifices, 
to  meet  the  difificulties  arising  from  the  char- 
acter of  the  one  great  sacrifice,  our  Lord  form- 
ally, authoritatively,  solemnly,  substituted 
bread  and  wine  for  His  body,  and  His  blood, 
made  them  the  same  as  His  body  and  His  blood 
for  the  purpose  of  men's  partaking  of  His  sacri- 
fice, gave  them  the  identical  purchasing  quality, 
so  to  speak,  which  had  been  given  to  His  body 
and  His  blood  by  its  being  made  "  a  ransom 
for  all,"  through  sacrifice. 


48 

The  Lord's  Supper  differs  not,  therefore,  from 
other  sacrificial  feasts  in  its  significatice.  It 
brings  in  no  new  form  of  worship. 

But  in  its  result,  its  efficacy,  it  is  as  far  above 
and  beyond  all  other  sacrificial  feasts,  as  the 
crucifixion  is  above  the  sacrifice  of  the  paschal 
lambs.  The  Lord's  Supper  stands  out  far  above 
all  other  sacrificial  feasts  because  of  the  pre- 
eminence of  the  sacrifice  partaken  of. 

Unlike  all  sacrifices  that  preceded  it,  the 
sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  the  cross,  left  no  room 
for  any  other.  It  was  all-sufficient.  It  needed 
not  to  be  repeated.  It  could  not  be  repeated. 
It  had  gained  for  mankind  every  possible  good, 
every  good  which  even  God  Himself  could  con- 
ceive of.  The  atonement  of  God  and  man  was 
completed.  All  other  sacrifices  had  been  made 
year  by  year  continually  and  then  without 
taking  away  sin.  But  this  Man,  this  August 
High  Priest,  this  August  Victim,  having  offered 
Himself,  one  sacrifice  of  sins  forever,  sat  down 
on  the  right  hand  of  God. 

The   uncertainty,  the   continual  striving   in 


49 

continual  sacrifices  found  a  peaceful  end  in  the 
sure  and  steadfast  faith  of  a  perfect  sacrifice, 
oblation,  and  satisfaction,  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world. 

See,  then,  how  this  gracious  declaration 
"Take,  eat;  this  is  My  body,  which  is  broken 
for  you,"  annihilates  time  and  space.  In  effect 
the  hour  still  is  in  which  the  cross  is  standing 
on  Calvary  bearing  its  sacred  sacrifice.  They 
who  obey  their  Lord  and  Saviour,  of  all  nations 
and  of  all  times,  which  have  been,  which  are, 
and  are  to  be,  gather  about  that  self-same  cross, 
joining  in  the  eucharistic  participation  of  that 
one  completed  sacrifice.  It  is  a  real  unity  of 
all  the  members  of  Christ's  holy  Church.  It  is 
a  real  communion  of  His  disciples.  In  this  ser- 
vice all  are  at  one.  It  is  actually  and  really 
the  same  act  in  which  they  engage.  It  is  ac- 
tually the  same  sacrifice  of  which  they  all  par- 
take, and  each  partaking  by  each  disciple  goes 
to  the  making  up  of  the  whole,  as  the  seconds 
make  the  century.  It  is  not  a  partaking  of  a 
commemorative    sacrifice,  or  a  continued  sue- 


50 

cession  of  partakings  of  commemorative  sacri- 
fices which  constitutes  the  Lord's  Supper,  but 
that  Supper  is  the  continued  feast  upon  the  one 
completed  sacrifice,  the  very  body  of  our  Lord. 
It  began  at  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
will  be  continued  till  Christ's  coming  again,  and 
the  sainted  dead  and  the  living  sinners  and 
those  that  are  yet  unborn  together  are  the 
guests. 

In  the  very  hours  in  which  He  offered  Him- 
self to  the  Father,  the  Saviour  prayed  for  His 
disciples  through  all  time  "  that  they  all  may 
be  one  as  we  are."  In  this  feast  He  intended 
that  the  whole  multitude  of  His  Church,  priests 
and  people,  should  be  united  in  the  bond  of 
peace,  knit  together  in  a  continual  league  of 
love.  He  could  not  have  imposed  a  higher  ob- 
ligation on  them  to  preserve  perfect  love  and 
peace  together,  than  by  permitting  and  requir- 
ing them  all  to  join,  by  its  participation,  in  His 
'  own  sacrifice. 

But    not    only    are    disciples   brought    into 
one  communion  and  fellowship,  in  the  Lord's 


51 

Supper,  not  only  is  it  the  very  bond  of  peace 
among  them,  it  is  also  the  act  in  which  par- 
takers are  actually  joined  with  Christ.  By  this 
we  do  not  mean  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  we 
are  joined  to  His  nature.  That  joining  was  ac- 
complished long  ago,  at  the  Incarnation,  when 
the  Son  of  God  took  our  nature  (humanity) 
upon  Him,  and  became  like  as  we  are.  His  hu- 
manity is  true  humanity.  In  its  nature  it  dif- 
fers not  from  that  of  all  men,  and  so  Christ  and 
all  men  are  sharers  of  humanity,  together  con- 
stitute humanity.  In  Christ,  by  His  Incarna- 
tion,* Deity  and  humanity  are  united.  But  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  we  are  united  with  Christ  in 
His  two  great  personal  acts  as  Offerer  of  the 
true  Paschal  Lamb  for  an  all-availing  sacrifice, 
and  as  the  High  Priest  pleading  that  sacrifice. 


*  To  suppose  that  men  partake  of  Christ's  humanity  by  par- 
taking of  His  body  and  blood,  is  to  suppose  that  His  humanity 
consists  only  of  a  body.  This  is  rank  heresy.  Christ  did  not 
take  simply  a  body;  He  took  also  a  reasonable  soul.  "Partaking 
of  the  body  "  is  not ' '  partaking  of  the  soul. "  Therefore  it  is  not 
partaking  of  humanity. 


52 

As  has  been  clearly  shown,  a  partaking  of 
the  sacrifice  was  a  partaking  of  the  benefits 
gained  by  the  sacrifice,  united*  the  partaker 
with  the  offerer.  The  momentousness  of  our 
being  thus  united  with  Christ  cannot  be  meas- 
ured, when  we  consider  the  majesty  of  the 
Offerer,  even  Christ  Himself,  and  the  greatness 
as  well  as  the  inestimable  value,  the  all-power- 
ful efficacy,  of  the  sacrifice  for  which  He  offered 
Himself  It  seems  impossible  that  if,  in  faith- 
ful obedience  to  Him,  we  are  joined  with  Him 
in  that  great  offering,  we  shall  not  thereby 
surely  be  made  partakers  of  remission  of  sins 
and  all  other  benefits  of  His  Passion. 

How  closely,  intimately  these  great  blessings 
are  connected  with  the  eating  of  the  broken 
bread,  Christ's  own  words  well  exhibit:  "  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  His  blood,  ye 
have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth  My  flesh, 
and  drinketh  My  blood,  hath  eternal  life;  and 

*  St.  Augustine  wrote,  "To  eat  bread  is  the  sacrifice  of 
Christians  in  the  New  Testament." 


53 

I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  .  .  ,  He 
that  eateth  My  flesh,  and  drinketh  My  blood, 
dwelleth  in   Me,  and  I  in  him  "  (St.   John  vi. 

53.  54,  56). 

But  we  are  also  united  with  Christ  as  the 
High  Priest  ever  making-  intercession  for  us. 
He  not  only  commanded,  "Take,  eat;  this  is 
My  body,  which  is  broken  for  you;"  He  added, 
also,  "this  do  in  remembrance  of  Me."  There- 
fore He  not  only  permitted  and  invited  men  to 
join  with  Him  in  offering  His  own  body  for  the 
sacrifice,  He  also  invited  them  to  join  in  His 
priestly  intercession.  For  this  word  "remem- 
brance" means  pleading  and  intercession.  It 
has  a  causative  force.  It  means  "  causing  to 
remember,"  "  reminder."  Do  this  in  "  reminder" 
of  Me.  The  reminder  is  addressed  to  the  Father. 
He  is  the  person  to  be  reminded.  And  this  re- 
minding is  the  same  in  character  with  Christ's 
intercession.  Therefore  in  eating  the  broken 
bread  in  remembrance  (reminder)  of  Christ,  we 
are  actually,  by  His  own  provision  and  permis- 
sion, joined  with  Him  in  that  His  High  Priestly 
intercession  with  the  Father. 


54 

Heaven  and  earth  are  one  grand  Tennple  of 
the  living  God.  In  heaven,  the  holy  of  holies, 
stands  the  High  Priest  of  our  race,  who  is  also 
the  Head  of  the  race,  our  Elder  Brother,  ever 
making  intercession,  ever  pleading  before  the 
Father,  His  meritorious  cross  and  passion,  ever 
pleading  that  the  redemption  of  mankind  may 
be  applied  to  each  of  us.  Without  the  holy  of 
holies,  are  gathered  all  the  thronging  millions 
of  God's  worshippers,  of  the  Church  militant 
and  the  Church  in  Paradise,  united  in  the  holy 
continued  sacrificial  feast,  which  feast  will  con- 
tinue until  our  High  Priest  shall  again  come 
forth,  as  a  triumphant  king,  His  intercessions 
within  being  finished,  and  all  the  thronging 
worshippers  shall  rise  with  eucharists  alone 
upon  their  lips,  the  feast  upon  the  broken  bread 
being  ended  when  the  intercession  of  their  High 
Priest  is  ended. 

But  the  theory  of  the  sacrificial  feast  involved 
not  only  the  unity  of  the  worshippers  with  each 
other,  and  with  the  maker  of  the  sacrifice,  but 
also    with   God.     The  heathen  corrupted    this 


55 

spiritual  idea  into  the  notion  that  their  god 
having  received  the  sacrificed  human  beings  and 
animals,  in  return  asked  the  offerer  to  sit  at  his 
table,  to  partake  with  him  of  the  meats  which 
had  been  made  his  by  the  sacrifice.  The  truth 
is  that  the  eating  of  a  sacrifice  signified  in  re- 
spect to  God,  the  partaking  of  what  was  His, 
that  is,  of  His  grace,  of  His  blessed  influences, 
of  His  goodness  and  power  over  evil,  all  those 
things  which  the  Church,  again  and  again,  in 
her  liturgy  and  prayers  sums  up  as  "remis- 
sion of  sins  and  all  other  benefits  of  Christ's 
passion." 

This  grace  is  bestowed  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  Vicar  of  Christ.  He  is  a  Spirit  and  there- 
fore His  workings  are  invisible,  hidden,  un- 
known to  men  except  in  their  results.  The 
spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  of  man  is  as 
secret  as  the  natural  growth  of  a  tree  or  of  man 
himself.  All  that  we  do  know  is  that  it  is  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  worketh  that  spiritual  life 
within  us.  He  it  is  that  stands,  so  to  speak, 
at  the  Lord's  table,  His  hands  laden  with  all 


56 

these  gifts  for  them  who  worship  God  in  Christ's 
appointed  manner.  He  it  is  who  takes  of  the 
things  of  Christ  and  shows  them  unto  us.  He 
it  is  whose  presence  here  on  earth,  while  the 
Son  of  Man  is  pleading  in  heaven,  animates 
and  vivifies  our  pleading,  and  also  bestows  in 
return  the  abundant,  overflowing  mercies  of 
God.  In  eating  the  bread  and  drinking  the 
wine  in  obedience  to  and  in  accordance  with 
Christ's  command,  we  are  joined  with  the  Son 
and  with  the  Holy  Ghost  in  pleading  the  sac- 
rifice before  the  Father,  and  in  return,  the 
Father,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  bestows  the 
innumerable  blessings  which  the  Son  gained 
for  us,  and  has  promised  to  them  who  worship 
God  in  the  eating  of  the  bread  and  the  drink- 
ing of  the  wine. 

The  Church  does  well  then  to  surround  this 
great  worship  with  eucharists,  with  thanksgiv- 
ings. Carefully  and  lovingly  she  fashions  her 
thanksgivings  into  a  liturgy,  as  a  setting  of 
pure  gold  for  the  choice  gem  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per.    Let  eucharist  upon  eucharist,  thanksgiv- 


57 

ing  upon  thanksgiving,  prevent  and  follow  this 
simple  tremendous  act,  though  no  liturgy,  no 
words  of  the  Church  can  add  aught  to  the  in- 
finite power  given  to  it  by  Christ  Himself. 

"  All  glory  be  to  Thee,  Almighty  God,  our 
heavenly  Father,  for  that  Thou,  of  Thy  tender 
mercy,  didst  give  Thine  only  Son  Jesus  Christ 
to  suffer  death  upon  the  Cross  for  our  redemp- 
tion." 


MEMORANDA. 

Two  nouns  are  frequently  joined  together  by  the  copula 
"is." 

If  one  of  these  nouns  is  the  name  of  a  person  or  thing, 
and  the  other  is  the  name  of  an  immaterial,  non-physical 
thing,  having  no  physical  substance,  as,  for  instance,  a 
title,  identity  may  or  may  not  be  asserted  by  such  a  sen- 
tence, and  this  is  determined  by  its  circumstances,  or  its 
context. 

When  two  material  or  physical  things,  occupying  sepa- 
rate spaces  and  being  therefore  distinguishable,  are  thus 
joined  together  by  the  copula  "is,"  complete  identity  is 
never  asserted,  but  only  the  sameness  of  some  one  of  their 
qualities  or  uses. 

Our  Lord  chose  this  form  of  expression  in  order  to  de- 
clare the  relation  of  the  bread  to  His  body. 

He  therefore  declared  that  the  bread  had  some  one 
quality  of  His  body,  and  He  declared  no  further  identity 
between  them. 

He,  in  addition,  indicated  that  this  quality  given  to  the 
bread  was  that  of  His  body  "  broken  "  and  "  to  be  eaten." 

His  body  was  to  be  sacrificed,  the  true  Paschal  Lamb, 
and  therefore  was  to  be  eaten. 
58 


59 

Because  He  gave  the  bread  this  same  quality,  the  eating 
of  it  has  precisely  the  same  force  and  effect  as  the  eating 
of  His  body  would  have. 

The  eating  of  Christ's  body  would  be  the  eating  of  that 
body  sacrificed.  Such  an  eating  or  partaking  would  be  a 
sacrificial  feast. 

Sacrificial  feasts  united  the  partakers  with  the  one  who 
provided  the  sacrifice,  and  so  made  them  sharers  in  the 
merits  of  the  sacrifice. 

Therefore  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  who  partake  are 
joined  with  our  Lord  in  giving  Himself,  as  the  true  Paschal 
Lamb,  to  be  sacrificed,  and  so  are  made  personal  sharers 
in  the  merits  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb. 


I' 


m-y 


w^^:f 


mnmmf&mmmmmmmmmmm 


m 


immmmmiiimmmmmmtimlimitmHii^, 


'■-    ■  '     ' "^  .   ^..     .    ■^.. r: ^ _^-^ ^_^^ ..,^,_^ ^..^ ^ — a^Jl.^.i£i.....,.,._ 


